We explore how different types and uses of memory can aid spatial navigation in changing uncertain environments. In the simple foraging task we study, every day, our agent has to find its way from its home, through barriers, to food. Moreover, the world is non-stationary: from day to day, the location of the barriers and food may change, and the agent's sensing such as its location information is uncertain and very limited. Any model construction, such as a map, and use, such as planning, needs to be robust against these challenges, and if any learning is to be useful, it needs to be adequately fast. We look at a range of strategies, from simple to sophisticated, with various uses of memory and learning. We find that an architecture that can incorporate multiple strategies is required to handle (sub)tasks of a different nature, in particular for exploration and search, when food location is not known, and for planning a good path to a remembered (likely) food location. An agent that utilizes non-stationary probability learning techniques to keep updating its (episodic) memories and that uses those memories to build maps and plan on the fly (imperfect maps, i.e. noisy and limited to the agent's experience) can be increasingly and substantially more efficient than the simpler (minimal-memory) agents, as the task difficulties such as distance to goal are raised, as long as the uncertainty, from localization and change, is not too large.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) The agent and its environment. It is important to emphasize that the agent does not see the whole grid, just the locations immediately adjacent to its current location (partial observability). (b) Two knobs on task complexity: barrier proportion and environment size (distance to goal). c) A 3rd knob on task difficulty: rate of (barrier) change, from day to day.
Figure 2: Basic actions and sensing: (a) 4 possible actions: LEFT (west), RIGHT , UP , or DOWN . (b) In this example, with two barriers, the agent has two legal actions (left and down). (c) Motion noise, up to 6 possibilities: when intending to go east (right), with some (noise) probability, the agent may end up in another location: stay in the same cell, go up, or down, or left, or go two hops east. (d) Sensing is also from a single adjacent cell (4 such).
Figure 3: The control loop of a multi-strategy agent, responsible for the agent’s daily activity. Each strategy has to provide an action-selection function, but other functions are optional. See Sect. 3.1 on how the agent changes its strategies (to find/reach goal), and Sect. 3.2 for the descriptions of the different functions.
Figure 4: An agent can use several strategies, or behavior modes, in a round-robin (fixed) ordered way in this paper (Sect. 3.1 ): (a) Each day the agent begins with using the first strategy. It moves to the next strategy (wrapping around), when current active strategy fails, or the strategy’s time is up, until goal is reached (or all strategies fail). The allotted times are doubled each time it starts the list over in that day. (b) An example composite agent: The Greedy + Biased (mixed-greedy) agent begins with the greedy strategy and transitions to (biased) random in case of the failure of the greedy, and repeats this loop (each time, doubling the time allotted to random), until food is found.
Figure 5: A summary of what different strategies use or require (mainly of the agent, but also of the environment). Greedy requires the smell (’gradient’) direction. Localization, ie availability of the (x~,y~) estimate of the current location for the agent, need not be perfect (Sect. 2.3 ). DQN’s long-term memory is in its neural-network weights, and its input vector includes current (x~,y~) in our experiments.
Figure 6: (a) In the pre-action-selection function of the ProbMap strategy, for each of the 4 adjacent locations, predictions of memory-types are updated and a new episodic memory is formed. (b) A daily estimated statistic W(d) , such as a predicted distribution by a memory-type, or its loss, is cloned at the beginning of the day, the original does not change during the day, while the other, within-day clone W(d,1) , is used ( e.g. for planning) and may be updated many times during the day yielding W(d,k) . At the end of the day, the within-day W(d,k) is incorporated into Wd) to generate the next day’s daily statistic, W(d+1) .
mean-mean
med-mean
med-med
max-mean
max-max
Random
1965 ±617
1815
1200
3.5k
30K
Biased ( Random )
536 ±163
479
329
1056
5.7k
Greedy + Biased (mixed-greedy)
200 ±110
167
37
541
3.3k
LeastVisited
250 ±49
252
198
395
1.5k
Greedy + LeastVisited
99 ±44
89
33
231
1.8k
Path + LeastVisited
209 ±48
203
155
325
1.7k
Table 1: Performance, i.e. the number of steps to goal (lower is better), of a range of strategies, from little or no memory, to extensive memory and computing (planning). The mixed ProbMap overall does the best ( Oracle gives the minimum in the impractical case of complete knowledge). Experimental settings: 15x15 grids, 50 environments, 20 days each, 0.3 barrier-proportion, 0.1 change-rate, and 0.02 motion noise. Mean-mean is average number of steps over the 20 days and then average over the 50 initial environments, while med-mean is the mean of the (50) medians.
Figure 7: Efficiency gains, ProbMap + LeastVisited compared to Greedy + Biased , mean steps over 20 days and 50 environments. The ratio of steps taken, Greedy + Biased to ProbMap + LeastVisited , (a) as we increase barrier-proportion ratio, for different change rates (on 15x15, 0 motion-noise), and (b) as we increase environment size (from 15x15 to 50x50), keeping barrier proportion at 0.3.
Figure 8: As motion-noise is increased, the advantage of ProbMap + LeastVisited compared to Greedy + Biased degrades. Left: on a fixed 15x15 grid (barrier proportion 0.3), Right: as we increase the grid size (distance to goal). However, with 0 motion-noise, the performance advantage grows with distance (as in Fig. 7 ).
Figure 9: Continual learning (memory updates) vs freezing memory ( i.e. stopping updates after day 10). Same setting for Table 1 except for 150 environments. Daily steps, means (left) and medians (right), as a function of day (each point is the mean or median, 150 values, of number of steps taken to food on that day).
mean & max steps
on 15x15
on 30x30
barrier prop. →
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Path + LeastVisited
28, 28
44.6, 110
35.2, 68
28.7, 58
62, 62
91.4, 206
92, 254
67.3, 172
ProbMap + LeastVisited
14, 14
14.5, 24
15.8, 46
16.4, 52
28, 28
29.2, 52
31.7, 66
36.8, 130
Oracle
14, 14
14.1, 16
14.6, 20
16.0, 36
28, 28
28.0, 30
28.5, 36
32.3, 76
Table 2: The average and maximum (max-max) number of steps to goal on 15x15 (left) and 30x30 (right), on 50 environments, average and max taken over the last 10 days of 30 days in each environment, as barrier proportion is increased, with 0 change-rate and 0 motion noise. ProbMap + LeastVisited remains much closer to the performance of the Oracle . Interestingly, the performance of Path is not monotonic with increasing barrier proportion (unlike the other two strategies): it first goes up (degrades) then comes down (improves).
↓ memory kept
k=2 , round-robin
k=2 , uniform
k=4 , round-robin
k=4 , uniform
1 day
178
124
182
179
2 days
28.4
81.1
192
165
5 (default)
34.7
59.2
33.1
159
10 days
29.7
55.3
41.4
129
Table 3: The performance (mean-mean) of ProbMap + LeastVisited as food location is changed from day to day (Sect. 5.5 ): k=2 means over 2 corner locations, and k=4 is over 4 (15x15 grids, change-rate of 0.1, barrier-portion of 0.3, motion noise of 0, 50 environments, 30 days) and averages are over the last 10 days (of 30 days). Oracle and Greedy + Biased , both being insensitive to the food location pattern, get respectively around 15.5 and 160s in this setting. Keeping episodic memories and memory-types helps the agent to discover the food pattern lowering its step counts. When more memory is kept, the agent can handle larger k .
budgets →
progressive (5,5)
5
10
20
40
60
80
Greedy + Biased
200
–
263
127
164
209
229
ProbMap + LeastVisited
80
89
92
83
94
118
117
Table 4: The default (’5,5’) progressive budgeting (first column) vs. different fixed time budgets ( e.g. the 2nd column is fixed budget of 5 on both Greedy and Biased ). The setting is as in Table 1 , and mean-means are reported. Progressive budgeting allows for a robust way of using multiple strategies. Greedy + Biased does not finish with a fixed budget of 5 (Sect. 5.6.1 ).
change-rate and motion-noise →
0, 0
0.1, 0
0, 0.02
0.1, 0.02
ProbMap + LeastVisited 15x15
1, 309, (90, 20)
3, 357 (90, 31)
3, 433 (100, 59)
5.5, 517 (101, 58)
ProbMap + LeastVisited 25x25
1, 545, (274, 41)
5, 722, (274, 86)
7, 1.7k, (376, 241)
10, 1.7k, (365, 267)
Table 5: Under a few change-rate and motion noise levels, the median number of planning invocations (computed over days 2 onwards), the mean number of episodic memories at day 20 (middle number), and the number of cells in the visit counts on days 1 and 2, are shown (environment parameters as in Table 1 unless specified). As the task gets harder, more memory is required and additional replannings are carried out (Sect. 5.6.2 ). The visit-count goes down significantly on day 2, specially with low motion noise (with a more focused path).
Table 6: Locations and food probabilities at the beginning of each day (on a run on 15x15, 0.02 motion noise). The real food is on a single location with true coordinates of (14, 14) (see Sect. 5.6.3 ).
Random exploration reveals how an environment can be traversed before a goal is specified. Can this experience support long-range planning without policy-improvement training? Our random-walk analysis explains what temporal relations contain: short horizons reveal geodesic geometry in the diffusion limit, while longer horizons reveal connectivity between regions before mixing removes these distinctions. We learn these relations with a conditional energy-based model that estimates temporal log-density ratios through horizon-conditioned embeddings. The model is trained on observation pairs by noise-contrastive estimation, without action or reward labels. The planner queries these learned relations at different horizons as it moves toward the goal. At test time, a separate local dynamics model predicts candidate action outcomes, and the temporal model evaluates their progress toward the goal by selecting or aggregating estimated improvements across horizons. The agent executes one action and replans with both models fixed. Experiments demonstrate long-range maze planning from random exploration using states and images. Learned score fields, embedding probes, and planned routes exhibit properties of a multiscale cognitive map. We further demonstrate egocentric navigation from random exploration and manipulation planning from suboptimal data.
Persistent spatial memory enables embodied agents to navigate familiar environments across repeated visits. However, targets may move while unobserved, including during navigation, making remembered locations unreliable by the time an agent arrives. Despite advances in memory retrieval and state prediction, accounting for continued hidden world evolution and revising beliefs under limited visibility remain challenging. We study Evolving-World Navigation, where agents infer target locations from intermittent observations, predict their states at inspection time, and revise beliefs using visual evidence. We propose EvolvingNav, which constructs a time-indexed belief from timestamped 3D object histories through a structured persistence-relocation model. The belief distinguishes persistence at the last observed location from relocation to alternative locations and retains probability mass outside the known candidate set. An event-driven filter propagates the current belief as time elapses, forecasts target occupancy at candidate inspection times, and incorporates new RGB-D evidence. Negative observations downweight location hypotheses according to calibrated, visibility-conditioned detection probabilities, while evidence tracking prevents repeated use of the same observations. A frozen, zero-shot vision-language controller uses the updated belief to choose actions and replan. We further introduce EvoWorld-Bench, a benchmark grounded in human activity traces, comprising 54 scenes and 803,680 tasks with controlled changes before and during navigation. In simulation and real-robot experiments, EvolvingNav improves navigation success and search efficiency over the evaluated baselines. Paired experiments show the clearest gains under learnable temporal patterns, while ablations demonstrate the value of preserving uncertainty and incorporating visibility-aware evidence.
Mingjian Gao, Zhaocheng Li, Haoyang Huang +7
Deeprobotics · Zhejiang University · University of California, San Diego +1
A robot carrying a persistent, behavior-annotated map faces two planning questions, and its memory answers only one well. The spatial-navigation question -- how to walk around a room -- we address first and report a negative: building on Vision--Language--Motion Maps (VLMM), a behavior-aware planner cost cuts a planning-time objective by ∼35% over 28 AI2-THOR scenes, but under closed-loop execution the real benefit nearly vanishes (∼4%) and an on-demand vision--language model (VLM) does as well. The resource-allocation question differs: under a limited perception budget, what should the robot re-observe now to keep its map fresh? Framing re-perception as this attention decision, we show a persistent map's memory (change-history, or even just recency of last sighting) yields the best schedule (held-out), matching an oracle, while the memoryless VLM prior is poor. Because the schedule reallocates budget toward what matters, memory's benefit concentrates on the important objects (∼1.6× the mean), and a downstream fetch task confirms fewer wasted trips; the gain grows with per-instance heterogeneity exactly as a Cauchy--Schwarz bound predicts -- it equals Var(λ), the variance of root-volatility. With a real CLIP prior on rendered objects the advantage is +21--26%. The map's distinctive value appears when the task is language-conditioned: told what to track, VLMM grounds the relevant objects (open-vocabulary) and tracks their change (memory), beating even a strong relevance-weighted recency baseline (+2.5%) -- so its motion channel adds value beyond a last-seen timestamp -- and an on-demand VLM (+8.9%); neither language nor dynamics alone suffices. The map earns its keep not by telling the robot how to walk around a room, but by telling it what to pay attention to.